This is an archive of past discussions about User:Star Mississippi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The scapes on my garlic was all ready yesterday, so I was able to harvest that and saute then with some fresh rabbit, and toss it with parmesan and pasta. I love this time of year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
That sounds amazing. I still lament a closed restaurant that served a rabbit ragu. I was hesitant at first, but it was delicious StarMississippi02:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm lucky that I raise my own rabbit, so I never find myself wanting for rabbit meat. Combined with all the other food I grow and raise, I basically get to eat gourmet whenever I feel so inclined. It's pretty nice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
So when are you hosting dinner?
I never ate better than when I lived for a time in Port Headland in Western Australia. Several fisherman were in the same housing and what we ate had been swimming that afternoon. Spoiled rotten. StarMississippi14:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
On a completely unrelated note, are you familiar with any conflicts at Talk:Albania at the Olympics? It looks like someone tried to ping you a month ago, and didn't sign so the ping didn't work. There's been some hostile IP edit request disruption going on, and it seems like the type of thing that has history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
No worries. JohnFromPinckney used to help me herd ducks, but he went suddenly inactive and this editor has not lost interest. Hoping there's an actual solution in the offering as whack a mole doesn't work. If these are confirmed, I'll try to roll back all the socking. StarMississippi17:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
They all look like they're from 91.148, so maybe some range pblocks on affected articles? I just want to clarify that I had made the dumb suggested edits joke before the edit request popped up on my patrol, so I wasn't trying to sweet talk you with some funnies before asking or some admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh no worries, and good to have the silliness. Socks are too annoying to waste good radishes on.
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, you deleted page Davide Locatelli after the deletion discussion. I believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants.
The same administrator who published the page, after two months of waiting, expressed a positive opinion in the discussion.
If necessary there are many other sources to be cited on the artist's career. Let me know, thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Diegoferralis. I'm pinging Numberguy6 to this conversation as well. However I will note that while his opinion as an AfC reviewer is absolutely valid, it holds no more weight than any other user's. I do stand by my reading of consensus that Locatelli does not meet the requirements for notability. You're welcome to request a deletion review if you still feel my close is wrong. Thanks @Praxidicae for some of the background, as always. StarMississippi15:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, and I notice that the user Praxidicae, who first opened the cancellation request, intervened immediately. Yes, I consider your cancellation to be incorrect for two reasons:
- Everyone's opinion is valid, as is my opinion and Numberguy6's, so they must be taken into consideration.
- The fact that on wikipedia Italy there are several deletions of the item is not relevant, we should calculate the users who intervene in deletion discussion, where I repeat: there is no single negative judgment. I ask again that the situation be re-evaluated, otherwise as advised, I will ask for a deletetion rewiew.
I will not be changing my decision, so please move forward with the Deletion Review so the community can discuss it. Please send me a link when you file the DRV and I'll further comment there to keep the conversation centralized. Have a great day. StarMississippi18:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but listen before proceeding with a deletetion review, I would like to have a more precise point of view from you on the cancellation. I may add other sources which I believe may change your opinion on this. Would it be possible to have the ability to publish the page in draft? Help me with the procedures if you can. Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not my opinion. When it is closed following a community discussion such as WP:AFD, it will likely either need to go through Deletion Review or AfC to return to mainspace. I don't think you understand why consensus is against this article existing. If you believe that consensus is wrong, please take it to Deletion Review. If you think you understand why consensus was correct and you can improve the issue(s), I'd be willing to draftify this but I would protect the mainspace so you cannot move it back unilaterally. I saw you told @Praxidicae that you aren't paid for this article, but you do seem to be very invested in its existence more so than someone who is just interested in a topic. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. StarMississippi13:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I will proceed with the deletetion review. I will not allow you to further question the genuineness of my intentions, no one is paying me for this article. I care since I wrote it, it took a long time, and I'm sure it deserves to be Wikipedia. I do not think it is right to make inferences in this sense, also I could say from what I see that you and @Praxidicae are good friends and I could say that you decide together who to stay on Wikipedia and who not, based on your sympathies, but I do not allow myself to say it. Greetings Diegoferralis (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Diegoferralis I strongly advise you to redact your statement as per WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. Star Mississippi and I have no connection other than being editors on the website and your insinuation otherwise is silly and obnoxious. Just because you don't understand how Wikipedia works, doesn't mean anyone is out to get you. PRAXIDICAE💕17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say you were paid, just that you had a clear conflict of interest, which your post full of bad faith does nothing to counter. I look forward to continuing the conversation at the DRV. StarMississippi17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, when I have time, I'm trying to understand how review deletion works. Fortunately, I do other things in life, so I don't have much time to devote to Wikipedia. Greetings Diegoferralis (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilaji, note that at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) it does not state that Populated, legally recognized places require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That requirement is for Populated places without legal recognition, under point #2 of WP:GEOLAND, where it states that said places are "considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". However, this stipulation is not in place for Populated, legally recognized places, which is covered under point #1 of WP:GEOLAND, nor should it be, because this was not the intention when the page was finalized as a guideline.
Per WP:5, Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. I was one of the people that helped to develop the guideline further and to get it promoted to a guideline page. If people want to change the guideline page, it should be done at the guideline talk page, rather than at individual AfD discussions.
At the AfD discussion, a user created a synthesis of wording at the guideline page, stating at the AfD discussion, "GEOLAND explicitly requires sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it [to] establish notability". However, GEOLAND does not state this at all. Rather, it states there, under the Sources section, "sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability." This general, generic statement does not override everything else on the page, nor does it nullify point #1 of WP:GEOLAND. It is just general guidance, nothing more. Point #1 certainly does not "explicitly" state make significant coverage a requirement at all, not even in the slightest. Point #2 does. Again, point #1 does not, point #2 does. It is strange that people seem to not understand this simple distinction all the time. People just make up their own rules, even changing the wording of the guideline page when it doesn't fit their agenda. Nilaji is a legally recognized populated place, and as such, per point #1 of WP:GEOLAND, such places are typically presumed to be notable. It is as simple as that. Please reconsider your close. North America100018:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Always happy to reconsider/ revisit my closes. In this case, I have relisted because I have just a brief time online today and possibly not until Monday and can't give it the re-assessment your request deserves. Didn't want your request to wait that long. StarMississippi01:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your review. I apologize for my errors, I have updated the article and published in a fresh page. I also moved the draft before i got this review i have been waiting for. all this happened in minutes. i want the draft article deleted and the published article reviewed and noted for any further correction. I copied earlier instead of moving before i got a notification that gave me guideline on how to move. i really need help to get this done. i want the best. Thank you. AdaObuezie (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Obuezie! You don't seem to understand how this works. Are you working with a class? Your instructor might be able to help. The draft is what will be reviewed and, if accepted, moved to main space. We only need one copy of the article. Please stop moving pages anywhere and just edit the draft with independent, reliable sources if you think Mbamalu is notable. cc @Robert McClenon who was also trying to help you. Let me know any other questions StarMississippi15:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Its Ok. I will edit the draft copy and resubmit for review. Please help me remove the one moved already or give me a guide on how to remove it.Thank you AdaObuezie (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi again. They have been removed. You may edit the draft article here: Draft:Gerald Mbamalu.
Thanks for the heads up. FYI on This Is Ivy League, which I think came to me via SuggestBot after some of the Asher edits. Its members are the first two you nominated. I'm not fluent in music notability so took it as far as I could and thought it may eke by with Suarez & Blackinton part of a notable band. Thoughts? StarMississippi19:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm all over the map on my AfD stats, even taking out my closes. There are some topics where I lean inclusionary (hi, museums, historic sites) and others where I feel like we need a higher bar. I feel that musicians can be hard because there are always listings for their events which can make it harder to dig through. StarMississippi19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
For musicians/bands/artists/writers I generally look for reviews. Generally WP:NCREATIVE#3 such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews is going to be the easiest to meet and find. If I find a couple reviews in high quality sources, I'm normally good with that. That's what I used for notability in Darcie Dennigan and Linda M. Morra. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep. Project consensuses are going to be the next complicated conversation when/if the sports/schools notability settle down. FWIW, I agree with your take that those probably aren't reliable sources and therefore shouldn't count as a whole "1" to add up to GNG. But that's opinion and not policy so I've not voted nor closed. Hope the rabbits and garlic continuing to wonderfully co-exist. StarMississippi20:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually got a new breeding rabbit this past weekend to increase meat production. On Sunday my wife made garlic scape and basil pesto and made some pasta with eggs from our chickens. Had that with some rabbit. Absolutely delicious. I have a picture of my most recent batch of rabbits on my user page, of you want to see how cute they are before they're food. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
so you're inflating your rabbit population to cut down on your inflation-related rising food costs. Well done friend.
Going to be getting a fourth doe fairly soon too. My wife and I raise quail as well, but they're too inefficient, so replacing them with more rabbit. Once we get the fourth we should be over 200lbs of rabbit a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Went to a restaurant for a special event that had a wild game platter: wild boar, quail and I forget what the third was. Couldn't believe how little meat was on the quail. Inefficient might be too generous. I found the one thing deer won't eat is black cherry vanilla ice cream. Or at least the styrofoam was stronger deterrent than anti deer sprays StarMississippi03:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
About a month ago I dispatched about 50 quail, and ended up with less than 5 pounds of meat. An average litter of rabbits is 7 and they dress out to 2-2 1/2 pounds each, and the quail go through more food. A good year with quail I might be able to process 250-300, which gives me about a quarter of the meat at nearly twice the food cost. Doubling my rabbits and getting rid of the quail will still save me food cost, and should net me way more meat. Also, the rabbit crap makes much better fertilizer, and they're less work.
I've found the best deer deterrent, me sitting out in the woods in my blind during deer season. I spent over 50 hours deer hunting last year with nothing to show for it. Opening day of spring turkey season this year two deer walked right by my blind. Thus is the life of someone trying to provide their own food :/ With the rabbits and the other game I harvest, if I were able to get one decent sized deer I would probably be meat independent, and two deer would be an embarrassment of riches. I never have that much luck though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
That's really fascinating, thanks for sharing the meat/feed cost breakdown. It's not really something most urban dwellers think about. Or at least I don't. I mean I know we're paying for more than cost of meat, but you don't think of all the factors that add in costs from farmer/hunter to transit to store. Supply chain is crazy wonderful thing to try and understand. StarMississippi14:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Occasionally there is an editor who is so determined and in so much of a hurry to do whatever they are trying to do that they run around and get in the way of other efforts to help them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't really in a hurry, only ran into problem while trying to create an article. I appreciate you. Thank you. AdaObuezie (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Star, maybe you can place your interest in Broadway (theatre) alongside that of museums on your user page. As always, I'll keep in touch when I find any new Broadway-aimed shows that need article creation (unless you already know about it) when their opening dates are announced. Stay cool this summer, and thanks for all your work! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes please. I always appreciate your heads ups as you're more tuned in than I am to the announcements so there's a lot new to me. I couldn't find the BRoadway userbox, but added a theatre one. If you know of a Broadway one, happy to do so. My love of theatre is also Off Broadway, so this is also a good fit. StarMississippi01:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks @Doug butler. I tried to ping you in the AfD but think I may have broken it. I've brought it to AfD as despite your work (and thank you!) I'm still not sure it passes WP:ORG. StarMississippi14:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Got the message. I only know of them through occasionally running into excerpts from their journal, which I have found to be of exceptionally high quality. Getting tax-exempt status from the Australian Government is a notable feat. However, as we know only too well, notability relies on citations not achievements.Doug butler (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Is their journal indexed in SCOPUS? Could be notable regardless of which way this AfD shakes out. Glad the ping went through. They're frustrating at times. StarMississippi19:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Multi-Year Saga
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think we're yet at indef, but I think a year is going to be the next step as we've done three months with no indication they're getting bored, sadly. Thanks for always keeping an eye on those. StarMississippi19:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
No consensus
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi TPH. When there were no sources there was a case to be made for that, but @Mrschimpf added a valid source, which you never contested and which rendered much of your initial argument moot. That brings us no consensus especially given zero input after two relists. I think the best solution if there's no AtD such as a merger would be to nominate it again at a time when AfD has more engagement and therefore a consensus determined. StarMississippi03:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Please unblock
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I was just going to make a keep argument when you closed this. (there was an edit conflict). Can you re-open the discussion please.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hiya, I only just home from work, after 10pm again! I forgot to do a follow-up post on the AfD, but I would like a chance to bring the standard of the list article up, if that's possible. That's what I wanted to do the other day. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
No worries. I remember from a prior interaction somewhere that we were in different time zones, and I never expect editors to wait until I'm online if there's something that needs handling. No issue at all with the DRV, just let me know if you want the article restored to draft and I'm happy to provide. StarMississippi21:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Question about sources
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, hope you are well, may I use Britannica as a source if I support it with aditional sources ? I have found it here on WP:RSN that it is realible [[2]] especially if supported by secondary sources, but still I am getting reverted. [[3]] Theonewithreason (talk) 21:41 03.July 2022 (UTC)
Theonewithreason, Hi! I'd check with Alltan for specifics on why they are reverting you. What would be best is finding the source that Brittanica used, but WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies so you should also include Brittanica since that's where you learned about source two.
Thank you.Star Mississippi Here is the list of authors used for the Britannica article [[4]] all of them are used on wikipedia as individual authors too. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:12 03.July 2022 (UTC)
If you can ID which source the fact you're citing comes from, perhaps Alltan would be happy with that solution. I haven't had the chance to look into the broader issue and may not this evening. StarMississippi22:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Well the whole history section was updated by John R. Lampe and Heather Campbell [[5]]. I think that all mentioned books are used, I have for now only Morrison, but still I also know that Lampe is very much used on wikipedia by Balkan editors. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:39 03.July 2022 (UTC)
Labour Party Rule Book
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I wonder if you might undelete the Labour Party Rule Book page which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Labour_Party_Rule_Book_(2nd_nomination). The real value of the page was the list of previous rule versions which were self referencing i.e. this was not original research. I think I am the most recent editor of that page and did not notice the debates on deletion. It might be that a different page content should be written as what was there was an index but the rule book is notable, and the rules themselves are self referencing. DaveLevy (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @DaveLevy and thanks for your note. While I think consensus is clear, I'm happy to draftify it for you to work on. I would recommend going through WP:AFC when you're done working on it, so that you avoid any G4 issues. Let me know if you have any questions. StarMississippi14:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
What is draftify? What are G4 issues? It sounds like it's a route to getting what I think is right or at least testing if something that is within the rules can be made. So please 'draftify' the page? DaveLevy (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Recently I got a message that my article about Lithuanian tennis player Matas Vasiliauskas is declined. I am not experienced at writing in Wikipedia, so I would like to ask a few questions on how I could improve my text.
What could be the main problem that my article was declined?
How I could improve my writing? Are there any words or sentence structures to avoid?
Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Star Mississippi. Hope you are keeping well. I observe you have redirected Meditation and Yoga Retreat article to Yoga as exercise. It can confuse the concept of retreat and also it has sufficient reliable sources as per Wikipedia policies to make it as notable. I understand it has been done as per the suggestion of other Wikipedia editors,but request you to consider again. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi. Thanks for your reply. I didnt mean to file a deletion review but I know despite suggestions based on Wikipedia policies we can act on the interest of Wikipedia. If its concern on notability I can add more reliable secondary sources, if you get it to draft stage. But redirecting it takes the subject no where as currently such retreats are picking up. Open to your suggestions as always. Gardenkur (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I think the best course is to make a case in draft space that it's separately notable from yoga as exercise. I'd stay away from retreats picking up, which brings it into the promotion territory. I know that's not your goal - but it's how it could come across. My gut is AfC would review that draft and decide whether it should be restored as a standalone, but pinging @Robert McClenon and @Timtrent as more experienced AfC reviewers for their guidance on that element. If that works for you, I can restore the draft. StarMississippi03:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Gardenkur, User:Star Mississippi - I am not sure that I understand the question. I am willing to review a reworked draft. If the draft is simply the text of the article as it was when it was redirected, I will probably reject it (rather than merely declining it), because you have already seen my comments in the AFD. So a revised draft will need to focus on what reliable sources says. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gardenkur I do not recall this article, but may have seen it. I see many articles and drafts. The AfD is a bit of a ramble, though consensus appears to me to be clear.
Create it as a draft, submit it for review, and let's move forward simply. However, remember that any new article to replace one deleted at AfD must be substantially different from the deleted article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Robert McClenon,User:Star Mississippi. Thanks Robert for accepting my request. Will add more references to create its independent notability. More than text i am interested in highlighting the relevance of article in current scenario. Hope that works. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Timtrent,User:Robert McClenon and User:Star Mississippi. Thanks to you and others to have supported me in discussion in either ways for having or not having this article. However, my interest was never to promote the concept of retreat but highlight its importance in informtational sense to general public across globe. It also supports in offering a variety of wellness services. The draft was already created but was redirected to Yoga as exercise,which I dont feel correct and requesting to reinstate as draft. Kindly guide. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. @Robert McClenon sorry I should have been more clear. Was an AfC process question in that would the course of action be appropriate to review a new draft via AfC to determine whether the redirect consensus was still appropriate, which you've answered. @Gardenkur I don't see any history at Draft:Meditation and Yoga Retreat indicating it was redirected. Did you create it under another title? StarMississippi13:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
oh sorry I thought you meant you created a draft which someone re-redirected. You can now find it in draft space. It would need substantial improvements to be approved via AfC so take your time. StarMississippi13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
my personal opinion is that it remains unencyclopedic and not significantly different to the deleted article to merit restoration. However, I will not review it since I was closer of the AfD and could be seen as Involved. You can click the button to submit it for review and an AfC reviewer will process it. StarMississippi13:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gardenkur If it is substantially different from that discussed the AfD then I suggest you submit it for review. But see the comments by @Star Mississippi about that. They perceive it not to be.
Hi User:Star Mississippi,User:Timtrent. Thank you both for the inputs. Will revisit once and will make improvements to highlight it better. I felt adding more inputs will take it towards promotional side so edited it to the extent of make it informationl and citing references from various secondary sources. Looking forward to learn and work with you to make Wikipedia,a dependable and qualitative platform. Wish you both a nice day and future. Gardenkur (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, you recently closed this AfD and the article creator posted a reply to your close that I think you may not have seen. I was just drafting a message to their talk page to explain their options, but on reflection I think it's probably more helpful for me to contact you about it directly instead. I don't think your close was in error per se but I'm here to ask for some mercy on their behalf. There were two delete votes on this before anyone got in with a keep, and no further votes, and I believe the article creator simply didn't vote keep because they didn't realize they could. Given the creator's confusion I wonder if you might consider reopening and extending the discussion? I don't know if it will go any other way given another week, but I would at least be able to get a mildly WP:IAR argument in for draftify on the condition that it goes through AfC. That argument is basically: this was declined at AfC (by me), improperly recreated in article space, and (justifiably) immediately sent to AfD; its creator is asking for help understanding policies, which is the purpose of AfC; a new editor, and by extension the project as a whole, will benefit more from properly going though the AfC process at their own pace (and perhaps ultimately being rejected) than having their content deleted at the end of a seven-day AfD deadline. I'm willing to babysit this article through the AfC process and to help its editor, who appears to be acting in good faith despite very obviously circumventing wikipedia's normal processes. What I was not (and am not) willing to do was to personally search out sources, improve the article, and argue for an AfD keep on an article I had already declined. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Your request makes total sense and I hope we can help the editor. A little more time won't hurt us. I left a longer note there. I have some remaining concerns about the SPA vote, but we'll see where it shakes out. Thanks for your note. StarMississippi01:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this, and for your thoughtful closes in general. Here's hoping this works out for the editor, whatever that turns out to mean in the end. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:AFC Helper Hanging.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Febo Screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hey there. I'm all set on my end, you can go ahead and delete. Thanks for checking. In the future, you can probably upload these to commons instead of enwiki to keep the bot happy. Since you are taking a screenshot of Wikipedia, which is cc-by-sa-3.0, for licensing you can probably just tag them {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} on commons. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Very much so, thank you @Novem Linguae. As you've guessed, I'm much better with content than the technical side of things :D Will save this info in the event I need to provide more screenshots for other troubleshooting. StarMississippi14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Blocking disruptive IP
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hiya. Rather than me traipsing to ANI, I wondered if you might be up for a quick block here: 94.128.80.69 - generally disruptive but mostly restoring a redirect resulting from an AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hiya - thanks! IP got in touch on my talk and said they'd stop restoring the redirect, but the talk page is still a (small, but always blanked) mess of warnings. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Worked for me. What issue were you having? Meanwhile feel free to delete my placeholder text and do what you need. StarMississippi20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
There is an article that is currently up for deletion that I would like to tell an editor about. As far as I know just letting someone know that an article is up for deletion is NOT canvassing, but I thought that I would check with you so I don't get accused of that again. They are the only editor who I will let know as I have been told not to inform a large amount of people about AFD articles. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Without knowing the specifics, that sounds fine. Something along the lines of "URL is a discussion I thought you might be interested in contributing to given.... whatever the reasons are that they would be. StarMississippi13:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Very good call on the SALT here. I honestly thought it was a bit excessive at the time, but you clearly saw something I missed!
Curbon7, thank you! That was some seriously tendentious editing. I don't think either editor actually understands notability, unfortunately. I get the frustration from spending time editing an article only to see it isn't yet eligible, but like you I don't see a path forward until she's confirmed. StarMississippi01:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Dan Benson
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
It looks like an editor is trying to recreate the article after it recently got deleted as part of an AfD. Wouldn't the best avenue for any recreation attempt be a push to draft? – The Grid (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Happy to help. Alas it didn't to much but it's now admin only for several days. I don't want to block a new editor, so hoping to avoid that. StarMississippi21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Harley (2nd nomination)
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Could you clarify why you closed as keep here? It seems that if policy does not support its existence then result should be delete, considering WP:LOCALCON as well as that consensus is formed by strength of argument, not number of votes - or perhaps as a compromise moved to draft, so that those editors who disagree with policy can easily restore it if they can get a consensus to change policy? BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @BilledMammal. It's semantics, but I feel a N/C close would also be challenged. FWIW, if I had seen this earlier to vote I'd have gone with Delete for reasons fairly similar to the ones you but forth, but the discussion there did not support it. Like much in the sports world, this is a grey area where consensus isn't settled in practice even if it is in theory. Would you like me to make a note that a relist on a n/c timetable would be appropriate to avoid the it just closed as Keep arguments if this can't be solved editorially? I'm about to be offline for a bit so pardon any delayed response. Will be back this evening though StarMississippi23:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
oops just saw your edited line so quick ETA from me before going offline. There's no way a draftification would stand at DRV and I couldn't defend it, as that's not the consensus of that discussion. Since this isn't a failed BLP verification policy issue, I don't think an n/c would merit draftification either. I'd say best course is to have a meta discussion (Village Pump?) to resolve the broader issue and then revisit the AfD if needed. StarMississippi23:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
My largest issue is that policy is settled here; if editors disagree with that policy they are free to challenge it an an appropriate level, but absent an IAR's argument (and none was made here) policy should not be ignored.
I don't think that such a note would make much of a difference; if there isn't a consensus to endorse the "keep" argument in a broader forum then it should be uncontroversial to re-nominate on that basis, and if there is a consensus then it is irrelevant.
Just a note that I'll be putting this conversation and the AfD (both the contents and the close) in as evidence at ArbCom - it isn't anything against you, and in fact I believe you are a good closer - as it is too good a piece of evidence to not include, for two reasons. First, some editors have argued that the MOS has been used to delete articles; this demonstrates the opposite is true. Second, it demonstrates that closers are adverse to close against a strong numerical majority, even when policy is clear - closers should be empowered to make such closes without having to worry they will be criticized for it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that heads up. Absolutely no objection to it being used. Here's another similar that might help you User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_4#Deletion_review_for_2021_Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers–New_England_Patriots_game because it's a similar issue. We know as editors (and that's how I'm speaking at the moment) what a particular outcome should be, but we know that isn't always the case even among established, good faith editors. Schools is an area where this is a particular issue in my editing world. This is why I abhor "per nom" !votes even if they're acceptable because most areas are a little grey and it's not a clear keep/delete, so the whys are very helpful. In an ideal world, this is what would happen process wise:
issue raised, discussion held at VP or other appropriate forum, articles that fall out of line with consensus (whether it be new, renewed or otherwise) are sent to AfD.
What tends to happen is:
article is at AfD, we realize human !voters aren't in alignment with established policy or guideline. Someone is unhappy with the close (and within their right to be-as you know I never have an issue discussing my closes), and we go in circles.
I think some of the issue is the decreased pool of editors. Consensus can change, but without solid input we can't figure out whether it has or not. DrV lately has been a mixed bag for similar reasons (see [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_May_23 Pushpam Priya Choudhary) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 3 where I don't think postage stamps will ever get conensus) and I think that's part of an issue with your potential "empower to close against consensus" idea, which I agree with in principle.
Please drop a note when you do include it as I may have some feedback worth noting. Will think on it and whether it's more helpful here or broader discussion, which I also contributed to with some of what I mentioned above re: poor quality votes. StarMississippi01:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Posted. I would note that the evidence phase ends in 10 hours, so if you have something to add to evidence I would add it soon.
I didn't include the 2021 game as WP:SPORTSEVENT is not a guideline I understand very well; I can't determine whether a local consensus overrode a broader consensus by allowing it to be kept. However, thank you for the suggestion; the discussions were an interesting read. BilledMammal (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I was unfortunately offline over the weekend so unable to add further info, but look forward to following the conversation. StarMississippi20:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Tausch article thrown out
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The delition was carried out although a major cleanup of the article was finished before - all of a sudden during the debate - a user simply draftified the article, which is now in a good shape. All this is really frustrating: you re-write an article, and - here it disappears! The article now would have met all wikipedia standards, and there are dozens, and dozens of worse articles on social scientists all around the present Encyclopedia.
Hi @Austrian political observer. It wasn't thrown out. You're welcome to edit it in draft space and submit it through AfC for evaluation or take it to Deletion Review if you believe my close was in error. Consensus did not agree with you that [the article] is now in a good shape and thought more work was needed. StarMississippi21:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
But since no one notified you (or anyone else involved in any of these discussions) all the ADAN stuff has been undeleted due to some apparent unspoken "discussion" that isn't obvious to me. PRAXIDICAE🌈18:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Unfortunately I'm not sure which article you're referring to. Do you have a link by any chance to the old article, IP 2603? StarMississippi00:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
What's going on with the move protection on this page? You logged it as "persistent vandalism", but the move in question was to Nazir Nawaz Jung Devdi. Previous moves by the creator were to move out of draftspace. I don't see either of those as being vandalism. It looks to me more like a dispute between the creator and you over whether this should be in draft. If that's the case, it should not be you doing the protecting as you are WP:INVOLVED. SpinningSpark09:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Spinningspark. Happy to undo it if you think it's best especially since you think mainspace is the answer. Or you're welcome to move through it since it's only extended confirmed. The move protection was set to last the exact same time as the AfD so consensus would make the decision. I have zero stake in the debate, I found it in mainspace doing AfC patrol after two moves/drafts so AfD was the only answer since it could not be re-draftified and is not appropriate for mainspace as it exists. I didn't think inexperienced editors should be moving drafts during AfD so the closer doesn't have to play whack a mole. StarMississippi13:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it is unhelpful to move articles during deletion debates, but it is not against policy. WP:AFDEQ explicitly says that it is allowed (but not recommended). It is therefore not within adminstrator authority to enforce it unless it is being done as deliberate disruption. I don't agree the article is unfit for mainspace, but that is not the point at all (note that there is a big difference between "unfit for mainspace" and "poorly written/constructed article"). SpinningSpark13:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
It's unprotected. I always read that as it's fine for editors such as you or I to move it when there's a more valid name, especially one that would help with sourcing. But I guess it comes down to the reading. For me the does this belong comes down to how long it has been here as well as is this comprehensible to the reader. For example, Juan de Mendoza, Marquis de la Hinojosa here since 2010 and incomprehensible when I found it, but draftification would have made no sense because it would have been G13 easily. In this particular case, the creator is active and could remedy it, or someone could help them if they had the ability to read in-language sourcing. But I guess we'll see where it shakes out. StarMississippi14:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Star Mississippi, hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you had a chance to look at my proposed changes for the Hauser & Wirth article, as discussed a while ago at the WP:MUSEUMS Talk page? I think they will contribute significantly to the current article. Thanks again for your time, Maddy at H&W (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, Star Mississippi. Hope you are well. As you suggested, I'm pinging you here again to let you know that I've made some changes to the Hauser & Wirth draft and put up some new suggestions on theTalk page, as well. If you have a moment to take a look, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks again! Maddy at H&W (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Star Mississippi, I hope you are well. I see that my last message at Talk:Hauser & Wirth has gone unanswered, and was hoping you might be willing to reopen the discussion. Would it help to post on additional forums as well? What is the best way to request additional input in this case? Our efforts on the draft were extensive... There are many inaccuracies in the article at the moment and I think an update would greatly benefit Wikipedia readers. Thanks again so much for your help with this. Maddy at H&W (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hey again,
I really disagree that this was no consensus. The keep !votes were based on inaccurate interpretations of NPROF -- namely that citations of non-academic publications can be considered on par with academic papers for C1 (most of her articles were not published in peer-reviewed journals, which makes things a lot murkier when looking at C1); and that being cited in books somehow outweighs the fact her citations overall are extremely low for her subfield. I especially think Beccaynr's extremely thorough analysis was a hammer blow that should have been given like 3x the weight of any other !vote. Would you please consider reclosing as delete? Or reopening for another admin to close?
Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Star Mississippi, I am also trying to suss out this no consensus close. I had reviewed sources to determine whether I could support keeping the article. Based on my review, keep !voters suggesting sufficient influence/impact seemed to be overestimating the significance of the sources per WP:NPROF, and this seems confirmed by multiple experienced editors who regularly participate in academic AfDs. Other keep !votes did not appear to be based on P&Gs, and most simply echoed the first !voter. I thought JoelleJay's comparison of citation counts was the key comment in the discussion, because the comparison objectively demonstrates there is insufficient influence/impact to support keeping an article on a VP in charge of giving awards to corporations. I would be interested in better understanding what you meant when describing all opinions as backed up with solid reasoning in your closing statement. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay @JoelleJay @Beccaynr, I unexpectedly ended up offline this weekend. I don't see a consensus there, but happy to relist it for more input. Becca, I'll come back to the source significance a little later today when I've cleared out my other to dos, but didn't want to leave the close unresolved. StarMississippi13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Star Mississippi, the clarification that you were focused on the sources helps my understanding of the closing statement - from my view, the discussion went beyond the sources, so it was not completely clear to me what your statement was referencing. And thank you for relisting, Beccaynr (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the unclear close. I don't think my fingers caught up with my brain because I concur that the discussion went beyond it to the weight of sourcing (for lack of a better word) for it to count. In my read CT55555 raised a clear question about the distinction in sourcing that wasn't clearly a no, the way other digressions/!votes were which was a large part of my reading it to no consensus. It seemed (opinion, not admin action) similar to the issue we sometimes see with humanities v. STEM citations of research. Curious to see where this shakes out as I can see the points you're both making. StarMississippi16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for relisting! I think several of the early !voters, including CT55555, were just very inexperienced in assessing academic notability, since NPROF makes no distinction between journal and book citations (To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books) and I've never seen the argument that books should "count more" elsewhere, or that the quality of the citing publication should ever be a factor. That may be why I and others didn't really rebut those points more thoroughly.
Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Star Mississippi~! Hope all is well in your world. I recently volunteered for NPP, and have a quick question for you. If I come upon a new article and can see ways to improve it - and do, can I still review it or should that be left to another reviewer? Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for the delay, I had logged off for the evening. I'm not sure of official process but what I do and have seen others as well is I'll accept it as part of NPP. So for example, I find a source that is worth adding or better verifies it, I do so. We're essentially saying it's acceptable, but could be improved and I've done so (or started to). Does that help? All is well here, I hope the same for you. Stay cool in this crazy weather. StarMississippi16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, yes a great help! That's how I interpreted it as well but wanted to run it by your experienced admin-mind. Thankfully I've escaped the heat wave on East Coast, am out West enjoying some early monsoon-weather, warm days with crashing thunderstorms rolling in the late afternoon that last about an hour and cool things down. Plaza Blanca, Abiquiú, New MexicoNetherzone (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I definitely think the rule of thumb is if it's viable, make it better. If it's a topic I'm familiar with, I'll edit directly. If it's more esoteric/niche (i.e. MedRS) I'll leave the source on the talk to help someone who may be better qualified to judge it.
Oh wow, what a stunning vista. I went to New Mexico a few years ago over Labor Day weekend and I can wholeheartedly understand why it was called the "Land of Enchantment" because I fell in love. That was my first experience with the monsoon rains, which was a little scary on the drive from Durango, Colorado down to Taos. Never made it to Abiquiu, but will be going back. My favorites were Chimayo Sanctuary, the Rio Grande overlook just outside Taos, Kasha-Katuwe and the surreal drive out to Four Corners. Not totally crazy, loved Bandelier and the Sandia overlook, but those I knew of. Everything else was a discovery on a whim of a long weekend. Enjoy every second! StarMississippi17:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
These are some of my favorite places! Chimayo with it's sacred dirt, the Rio Grande overlook, Bandelier, Sandia Crest. I have never been to Kasha-Tatuwe or as some call it Tent Rocks; it's on my bucket list. Did you go to Mesa Verde when you were in the Durango area. A truly stunning place, I was there for the eclipse some years back. It was about 85% to 90% darkness there and the nat'l park was practically abandoned. I guess most eclipse watchers wanted to view from the 100% zone. Abiquiú and Ghost Ranch is definitely worth a day trip, as are Ojo Caliente hot springs. Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh wow on the eclipse. I had some friends travel to Colorado and further west but didn't have the chance to get out of town for it. One day! Mesa Verde is part of why I did Four Corners, plus I love a road trip. The direct route is also generally the most boring and the first thing I do when I get to a new place is get away from the interstate. The chance to drive parts of Route 66 was an even more fun benefit. I left Albuquerque and didn't get to Santa Fe until three? days later with overnights in Cortez and Taos (and possibly one more?). Best scenic route ever. Have you read Nevada Barr? That's how I learned of Mesa Verde. All of her books are set in National Parks and a fun way to see places, and a good way to add to your bucket list. The Parks are in some ways better characters than her main one, Ranger Anna Pigeon.
Kasha-Tatuwe is so foreign looking with its rock formations and I spent a good hour. It was great to see the Rio Grande in so many places to see how it changes. There was another overlook near either Bandelier or Los Alamos that was a stunning contrast to the ground level view near Kasta-Tatuwe. It looks like that's closed for the forseeable future but go when it reopens if you can. It's more challenging than Bandelier but definitely accessible if you don't have mobility issues.
I could have easily spent a week and wish I'd known how magical it was. I will definitely put Ghost Ranch and hot springs on my list. StarMississippi18:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I too am a huge road trip fan, and I get what you are saying about getting off the interstate. Friends of mine out here laugh at me when I tell them I take the back road through Algodones when I drive between Santa Fe and Albuquerque. It was William Least Heat-Moon's book Blue Highways that convinced me years ago of the wonders of taking secondary highways and back roads on road trips. I have never read Nevada Barr, thanks for the suggestion, sounds interesting! Enjoy the rest of your weekend, and happy trails... Netherzone (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read Blue Highways but loved his River Horse.
When I flew into Denver and did a round trip road trip via Devil's Tower, the Black Hills, Badlands, Wounded Knee and Oregon Trail I laughed so hard because I stayed one night in Deadwood, South Dakota and the next in Rapid City, about 45 minutes as the crow flies. This crow? Spearfish Canyon, Crazy Horse Memorial, Custer State Park, and of course Rushmore at sunset. I had the best road trip laugh though because I stopped at an info center to get a reality check on my directions and the staff last. Those roads apparently only existed in Google Maps. Fabulous trip though. The landscape of the West is just amazing.
PS: congratulations, you're now an official reviewer. Not to worry, you'll do it again. At least it's not reallya Don't Template the Regulars issue if it's self inflicted :) Enjoy your weekend as well. StarMississippi01:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Have you read Amber Share's Subpar Parks @Netherzone? From our conversations here and on your Talk, I think this might be one you'd enjoy having a look through. My local library had it, so yours may as well. I'd recommend it in hard copy or the app, it didn't fare so well on my black and white Kindle. StarMississippi01:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the recommendation, it looks like a fun summer read. I'll look for it at the library or thru interlibrary loan. You can see the illustrations in color on her Instagram [7]. Some of them had me laughing out loud! Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It is! I read it in two days around the new Daniel Silva release and definitely enjoyed it. While I love most national parks/monument, etc. I found myself chuckling in agreement at some of the reviews. We went to Muir Woods when I was a teen and at some point there were just too many big, huge, amazing trees to take in. StarMississippi01:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Your comment about too many trees cracks me up! I remember visiting either Muir Woods or the giant redwoods or sequoias and being impressed but totally grossed out by the huge banana slugs. It was years ago but something I never forgot - I normally don't get the willies from bugs and insects but these giant land mollusks are creepy. Netherzone (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
those look downright alien.
It's funny, we're aware of and rightly respectful of the large predators in the parks but somehow we don't hear as much about the smaller creepy crawlies. Except when I lived in Australia, then I heard a lot about the minute things that would try to kill humans. StarMississippi02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
It must have been interesting living in Australia, good thing the minute things did not get you! I hope some day to travel there and also New Zealand. Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Australia was absolutely amazing. I had the opportunity to live there and in Japan after college, and with no spouse/mortgage/children the question of 'paying adventure v. office temp job' was an absolute no brainer. Japan was better salary wise as far as paying student loans, but both paid more than I would have with a BA and no degree here. If you can spare the time, stop in Fiji or elsewhere in the South Pacific to break up the flight to Australia. Post-internet, pre-smart phone/watches made for some very interesting moments trying to figure out what time and day it was for a bit when I landed. StarMississippi02:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn't consider Bali only because it was so (relatively) close to my destination and I wanted a closer to half way option. Tahiti was in the cards, but Fiji was a little cheaper once you got there. Weirdest travel in that general area was a flight that took off from Japan at 8pm and landed in Honolulu at 8am that same day. There's a great Bill Bryson line in, I think, In a Sunburned Country that talks about the need to reconstitute the cells that make up a person once they have crossed the date line.
I taught for a company called Nova group and it was a really fascinating way to learn about not only the Japanese culture but also that of those who were also TEFL and other language teachers from other countries. I've since done soem really wonderful temp work, but if the question is whether to see the world in your early 20s? There's only one answer if you're able. I learned a lot more about who I was and what I wanted to do with my life than if I'd followed my original plan right to a degree at the London School of Economics. StarMississippi02:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
